(no subject)
Injury forces Tennant from Hamlet Doctor Who actor David Tennant was forced to pull out of a performance of Hamlet on Monday because of an "ongoing back injury".
...
Edward Bennett, who normally plays Laertes in the production, played Hamlet in Tennant's absence and received a "standing ovation", according to the RSC.
Best performance by an understudy I've ever seen, and I'm one of very few people - perhaps just me in the audience, I don't know - who can compare it with the Tennant version, and Bennett was very good indeed.
A couple in the audience who I was queueing behind as we left made the perceptive comment that Bennett was much stronger in the comic moments, which is probably true. One of the things I noticed when I first saw it was that Tennant felt much more in control than he did in some productions I've seen, or the chronic-indecision-tragic-flaw that you're supposed to write in run-of-the-mill literature essays. I think Bennett was similar to Tennant in that, which makes me think it was probably a conscious choice on the part of the director, rather than a personal interpretation from Tennant. To me, this is interesting, because the format of a play is one of the few ways I find idiotic/childish/unthinking errors work, when I don't think they work in a contemplative novel. Hamlet feels much more driven by controlled revenge here than elsewhere.
One of the other items I felt worked was the emphasis of the father/child relationships. Polonius made the stage sparkle, and I found him a much more sympathetic character than I've seen him in other productions. His imparting of wisdom felt much more like fatherly care, rather than control, which left us with three contrasting relationships - Polonius's well-meant care which misses the mark; Claudius's "smiles and smiles" to Hamlet, with their darker intent, and his perceptive unwillingness to accept the proferred explanations of Hamlet's disturbance; and the complete control which Old Hamlet exercises over Hamlet from beyond the grave. Each relationship misses the mark of what should happen - compare Polonius/Laertes (who comes off best in this production, I feel) with Gaunt+York/Bolingbroke in Richard II, and you still have the problem that, regardless of how poor a king might be, Laertes comes to unking Claudius. Not all the water in the rough rude sea can wash the balm from an annointed king? Each relationship is out of kilter, in different ways.
There were a few interesting cuts to the text - in particular, the election lighting on Fortinbras is just cut, though Fortinbras turns up. The staging is nice - with an immediate, obsequious bow - but the text cut feels slightly unnecessary.
Thoroughly enjoyable, however, and I hope Bennett is given his own lead very soon.
...
Edward Bennett, who normally plays Laertes in the production, played Hamlet in Tennant's absence and received a "standing ovation", according to the RSC.
Best performance by an understudy I've ever seen, and I'm one of very few people - perhaps just me in the audience, I don't know - who can compare it with the Tennant version, and Bennett was very good indeed.
A couple in the audience who I was queueing behind as we left made the perceptive comment that Bennett was much stronger in the comic moments, which is probably true. One of the things I noticed when I first saw it was that Tennant felt much more in control than he did in some productions I've seen, or the chronic-indecision-tragic-flaw that you're supposed to write in run-of-the-mill literature essays. I think Bennett was similar to Tennant in that, which makes me think it was probably a conscious choice on the part of the director, rather than a personal interpretation from Tennant. To me, this is interesting, because the format of a play is one of the few ways I find idiotic/childish/unthinking errors work, when I don't think they work in a contemplative novel. Hamlet feels much more driven by controlled revenge here than elsewhere.
One of the other items I felt worked was the emphasis of the father/child relationships. Polonius made the stage sparkle, and I found him a much more sympathetic character than I've seen him in other productions. His imparting of wisdom felt much more like fatherly care, rather than control, which left us with three contrasting relationships - Polonius's well-meant care which misses the mark; Claudius's "smiles and smiles" to Hamlet, with their darker intent, and his perceptive unwillingness to accept the proferred explanations of Hamlet's disturbance; and the complete control which Old Hamlet exercises over Hamlet from beyond the grave. Each relationship misses the mark of what should happen - compare Polonius/Laertes (who comes off best in this production, I feel) with Gaunt+York/Bolingbroke in Richard II, and you still have the problem that, regardless of how poor a king might be, Laertes comes to unking Claudius. Not all the water in the rough rude sea can wash the balm from an annointed king? Each relationship is out of kilter, in different ways.
There were a few interesting cuts to the text - in particular, the election lighting on Fortinbras is just cut, though Fortinbras turns up. The staging is nice - with an immediate, obsequious bow - but the text cut feels slightly unnecessary.
Thoroughly enjoyable, however, and I hope Bennett is given his own lead very soon.